User talk:Cambalachero: Difference between revisions

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

Hello, Cambalachero. You have new messages at Talk:Dnestr radar.
Message added 16:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Secretlondon (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cambalachero. You have new messages at Sainsf's talk page.
Message added Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I apologize for the late reply. I'm currently putting all of my focus on college, so I may not reply as readily as I would like. In any event, I would be glad to take a glimpse at the article. Since it is so long, the review may take a little while to complete. I'll set the review up in stages. I will start the review no later than Saturday. Cheers! :) —DAP388 (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2012 cacerolazo in Argentina, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that on September 13, 2012, nearly 200,000 Argentines protested against the policies of the president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2012 cacerolazo in Argentina. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Graduados, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blood tables, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although José Rivera Indarte wrote the Blood tables against Juan Manuel de Rosas, he had previously been his supporter? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blood tables. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Andrea Pietra. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Andrea Pietra has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2012 cacerolazo in Argentina, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mapep (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Paola Barrientos and explain why my concerns aren't justified. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your formatting help at WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech, much appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would like to join, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speech/Participants ? :) — Cirt (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conozco bien la política de neutralidad de Wikipedia: no es mantenerse en el centro sino explicitar todos los puntos de vista posibles. Esta política es violada por ese artículo al solo presentar los puntos de vistas de la Nación (diario de derecha) y Clarín, que hace años mantiene una relación más que conflictiva con el gobierno. No hay citas a Página/12 o Tiempo Argentino, por ejemplo. Además, como Wikipedia no es una fuente primaria: sus artículos son tan válidos como lo son sus citas. Las referencias a Clarín y la Nación no dicen nada de ninguna investigación científica acerca de los medios en Argentina, así que no pueden ser tomados como una verdad, sino como una opinión. En una enciclopedia, las opiniones no deberían camuflarse como verdades universales o científicas. Dicho esto, procedo a revertirte. --190.18.31.143 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Página 12 y Tiempo Argentino no pueden ser usados en temas políticos porque son financiados por el gobierno, y por lo tanto sus opiniones políticas tienen un conflicto de interés. Clarín y La Nación se financian a sí mismos y no están afiliados a ningún partido, por lo que no tienen conflictos de interés. Lo de que el gobierno maneja el 80% de los medios tiene hasta referencias internacionales: ¿hay alguna que lo niegue, y que no esté financiada por el gobierno argentino? Y respecto a la derecha... el muro de Berlín ya se cayó, hace más de 20 años. Cambalachero (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cambalachero. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Portions_of_videos.
You can remove this notice at any time.

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great work on history articles! Neo139 (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you need help with some related article, ask me. Cambalachero (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

8N (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sidney

Domingo Matheu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Juan Larrea

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paola Barrientos, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that actress Andrea Pietra suggested the inclusion of Paola Barrientos in the cast of Graduados? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paola Barrientos. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Peruvian poster is trying to give a unilateral and biased view of the conflict : throughout the conflict Montevideo and Colonia remained under Brazilian control; Brazil wiped out the United Provinces Navy. And the blockade was quite effective, in front of Buenos Aires. If the Brazilian performance had been so bad, Uruguay would have become part of the United Provinces, which it did not.

Given that the outcome was a draw, the portrayal of the conflict you wanted to give is biased, unless you post other opinions (and there are many) contrary to that of Stowell. It is he who should justify that comment he wants so much to post.

Here is what Sir Richard Gordon said to Lord Ponsonby at that time: "Los recursos de este Imperio parecen inmnensos y creyendo como yo que Brown -grande como es- no puede con sus goletas aniquilar a la armada brasileña, simplemente tendrá Ud. al bloqueo restablecido con mayor vigor".187.36.81.70 (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can post other opinions, the thing is he chose a biased opinion and he is giving a biased view of the conflict. If it were entirely true, Uruguay would have become part of Argentina, which it did not.187.36.81.70 (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can post other opinions as I said. The facts of the conflict speak for themselves anyway. Had it been a military victory, Argentina would have annexed Uruguay, which it did not. And it did not because it was suffering the economic consequences of the naval blockade Brazil imposed on Buenos Aires, its main place of interaction with the outside world, and Argentina at that time was heavily dependent on both exporting and importing goods. Brazil did manage to destroy the functionality of the United Provinces Navy, a fact which that opinion he posted is clearly omitting.187.36.81.70 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not claim Brazil won. The aspects I highlighted were countering the claim that it was a United Provinces military victory, trying to show how unilateral and incomplete is the quote the Peruvian likes so much, even though it does not come from a military historian nor from an expert on the subject.

The United Provinces fought well along with those of the Banda Oriental, and they won many battles, no doubt with valour. Brazil did not manage to win over them. However, in spite of the many military successes of the United Provinces, they still lacked the means to expel the Brazilian troops still stationed in Uruguay and to end the blockade. As for Britain, their interest was in preventing either the United Provinces or Brazil coming clearly victorious since it could pave the way to a major big state in South America, which is all the major powers have tried to avoid, be it Argentina and Brazil. Cheers.187.36.81.70 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As for Brazil not winning, Brazil was and still is a fragile country. Relocating troops at that time was quite burdensome, our troops were poorly trained, etc. You only need to look at the difficulty we had in coping with the various internal revolutions inside the country at that time, from north to south (the Farroupilha revolution) you mentioned being a clear example of it. Besides Uruguay was home to a significant Spanish speaking population, most of the population if I am not wrong, and they were in a strong mood against the Portuguese speaking population, after all Uruguay had been a battleground between Spain and Portugal during colonial times (just look at how many times Colonia changed from Portuguese to Spanish and vice versa), animosities were particulary strong. Just before our independence, Portugal had annexed the Banda Oriental.

The United Provinces, as I said, fought well, invading the Brazilian territory and repelling our troops (battle of Ituzaingó, f.e, and the incursions of Rivera in the territory of Missões). They had already fought well against the British, when the British tried to take over Buenos Aires and were defeated. Brazil did not manage to expel them from the Banda Oriental. There came in the independence of Uruguay.187.36.81.70 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]